Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fluoridation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves measure letting second-class counties put water fluoridation to a vote after opt-out amendment
Summary
The Utah House passed Senate Bill 158 on Feb. 29, 2000, extending the option to hold countywide referendums on adding fluoride to water systems to second-class counties while allowing cities with separate water systems to opt out. A proposed 60% supermajority requirement failed.
The Utah House on Feb. 29 approved Senate Bill 158, a bill that extends to second-class counties — including Utah, Weber and Davis — the option to hold countywide elections on whether to add fluoride to public water systems. The bill’s sponsor described it as a process bill giving local communities the chance to decide whether to fluoridate their water.
Representative Lockhart, who offered a successful floor amendment (Amendment 9), said the change protects municipalities that maintain independent water systems by allowing those cities to opt out of a countywide decision. “This will preserve that right to the people of Utah County as well,” Lockhart said as he pressed for the amendment.
Representative Harper proposed raising the threshold for approval on a countywide ballot from a simple majority to 60 percent; lawmakers debated the move as a question of setting a precedent for when ballot issues require supermajorities. The House rejected the 60% proposal, with opponents saying a higher threshold would give a minority power over the majority.
Opponents raised health and individual-choice concerns during debate. Representative Bush said some people can be harmed by fluoridation and warned the public may not be fully informed before voting. Supporters including Representative Saunders argued the change simply gives voters in second-class counties the same right to decide that residents of Salt Lake County already have.
The House adopted the Lockhart amendment, declined the 60% amendment and approved the bill for return to the Senate for further action. The floor debate focused on local control and whether voters in areas served by separate municipal water systems should be bound by countywide outcomes.
The House’s action was procedural — the bill sets the way decisions are made and does not itself mandate fluoridation. Further local processes would follow if counties elect to place the question on the ballot.
